This study sought to examine the effects of no-drop
policies on court outcomes, victim satisfaction with the
justice system, and feelings of safety. Moreover, researchers wanted
to determine whether (1) prosecution without the victim's cooperation
was feasible with appropriate increases in resources, (2) implementing
a no-drop policy resulted in increased convictions and fewer
dismissals, (3) the number of trials would increase in jurisdictions
where no-drop was adopted as a result of the prosecutor's demand for a
plea in cases in which victims were uncooperative or unavailable, and
(4) prosecutors would have to downgrade sentence demands to persuade
defense attorneys to negotiate pleas in the new context of a no-drop
policy. Statutes implemented in San Diego, California, were designed
to make it easier to admit certain types of evidence and thereby to
increase the prosecutor's chances of succeeding in trials without
victim cooperation. To assess the impact of these statutes,
researchers collected official records data on a sample of domestic
violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 2000 and
resulted in no trial (Part 1), and cases in which disposition occurred
between 1996 and 1999, and resulted in a trial (Part 2). In Everett,
Washington (Part 3), Klamath Falls, Oregon (Part 4), and Omaha,
Nebraska (Part 5), researchers collected data on all domestic violence
cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999 and resulted
in a trial. Researchers also conducted telephone interviews in the
four sites with domestic violence victims whose cases resolved under
the no-drop policy (Part 6) in the four sites. Variables for Part 1
include defendant's gender, court outcome, whether the defendant was
sentenced to probation, jail, or counseling, and whether the
counseling was for batterer, drug, or anger management. Criminal
history, other domestic violence charges, and the relationship between
the victim and defendant are also included. Variables for Part 2
include length of trial and outcome, witnesses for the prosecution,
defendant's statements to the police, whether there were photos of the
victim's injury, the scene, or the weapon, and whether medical experts
testified. Criminal history and whether the defendant underwent
psychological evaluation or counseling are also included. Variables
for Parts 3-5 include the gender of the victim and defendant,
relationship between victim and defendant, top charges and outcomes,
whether the victim had to be subpoenaed, types of witnesses, if there
was medical evidence, type of weapon used, if any, whether the
defendant confessed, any indications that the prosecutor talked to the
victim, if the victim was in court on the disposition date, the
defendant's sentence, and whether the sentence included electronic
surveillance, public service, substance abuse counseling, or other
general counseling. Variables for Part 6 include relationship between
victim and defendant, whether the victim wanted the defendant to be
arrested, whether the defendant received treatment for alcohol, drugs,
or domestic violence, if the court ordered the defendant to stay away
from the victim, and if the victim spoke to anyone in the court
system, such as the prosecutor, detective, victim advocate, defense
attorney, judge, or a probation officer. The victim's satisfaction with
the police, judge, prosecutor, and the justice system, and whether the
defendant had continued to threaten, damage property, or abuse the
victim verbally or physically are also included. Demographic variables
on the victim include race, income, and level of education.

This study sought to examine the effects of no-drop
policies on court outcomes, victim satisfaction with the
justice system, and feelings of safety. Moreover, researchers wanted
to determine whether (1) prosecution without the victim's cooperation
was feasible with appropriate increases in resources, (2) implementing
a no-drop policy resulted in increased convictions and fewer
dismissals, (3) the number of trials would increase in jurisdictions
where no-drop was adopted as a result of the prosecutor's demand for a
plea in cases in which victims were uncooperative or unavailable, and
(4) prosecutors would have to downgrade sentence demands to persuade
defense attorneys to negotiate pleas in the new context of a no-drop
policy. Statutes implemented in San Diego, California, were designed
to make it easier to admit certain types of evidence and thereby to
increase the prosecutor's chances of succeeding in trials without
victim cooperation. To assess the impact of these statutes,
researchers collected official records data on a sample of domestic
violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 2000 and
resulted in no trial (Part 1), and cases in which disposition occurred
between 1996 and 1999, and resulted in a trial (Part 2). In Everett,
Washington (Part 3), Klamath Falls, Oregon (Part 4), and Omaha,
Nebraska (Part 5), researchers collected data on all domestic violence
cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999 and resulted
in a trial. Researchers also conducted telephone interviews in the
four sites with domestic violence victims whose cases resolved under
the no-drop policy (Part 6) in the four sites. Variables for Part 1
include defendant's gender, court outcome, whether the defendant was
sentenced to probation, jail, or counseling, and whether the
counseling was for batterer, drug, or anger management. Criminal
history, other domestic violence charges, and the relationship between
the victim and defendant are also included. Variables for Part 2
include length of trial and outcome, witnesses for the prosecution,
defendant's statements to the police, whether there were photos of the
victim's injury, the scene, or the weapon, and whether medical experts
testified. Criminal history and whether the defendant underwent
psychological evaluation or counseling are also included. Variables
for Parts 3-5 include the gender of the victim and defendant,
relationship between victim and defendant, top charges and outcomes,
whether the victim had to be subpoenaed, types of witnesses, if there
was medical evidence, type of weapon used, if any, whether the
defendant confessed, any indications that the prosecutor talked to the
victim, if the victim was in court on the disposition date, the
defendant's sentence, and whether the sentence included electronic
surveillance, public service, substance abuse counseling, or other
general counseling. Variables for Part 6 include relationship between
victim and defendant, whether the victim wanted the defendant to be
arrested, whether the defendant received treatment for alcohol, drugs,
or domestic violence, if the court ordered the defendant to stay away
from the victim, and if the victim spoke to anyone in the court
system, such as the prosecutor, detective, victim advocate, defense
attorney, judge, or a probation officer. The victim's satisfaction with
the police, judge, prosecutor, and the justice system, and whether the
defendant had continued to threaten, damage property, or abuse the
victim verbally or physically are also included. Demographic variables
on the victim include race, income, and level of education.

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
During the late 1980s and 1990s, the law
enforcement response to domestic violence changed substantially. Legal
impediments to police officers' making warrantless arrests for
misdemeanors they did not witness were removed. The old system was
replaced by presumptive arrest statutes (under which police were
encouraged to make arrests) or statutes making arrest mandatory when
probable cause existed. Many victim advocates supported these changes,
arguing that taking the decision to arrest away from victims shielded
them from possible retaliation by batterers. The changes in police
practices regarding domestic incidents were paralleled by changes in
the prosecution of these cases. Many jurisdictions changed their
prosecution policies to (1) assure that all legally sufficient
domestic cases would be prosecuted whether or not victims were fully
cooperative, (2) drop the requirement that victims sign a complaint,
and (3) forbid victims from dropping charges once filed. Other
jurisdictions facilitated the process of obtaining restraining orders,
established special domestic violence courts staffed with personnel
specially trained in handling the complications of domestic cases, or
established better coordination among police, prosecution, judicial,
and probation agencies. Some prosecutors adopted a policy that
paralleled mandatory arrest policies of the police. So-called
"no-drop" or "evidence-based" prosecution was pioneered in places like
Duluth and San Diego as a response to the high dismissal rate of
domestic violence cases. Until that time, it had been the practice of
most prosecutors and judges to dismiss domestic cases in which the
victim was unwilling to come to court or to testify against the
defendant. Since many victims failed to cooperate for a variety of
reasons, domestic violence cases had dismissal rates many times higher
than other crimes. This study sought to examine the effects of no-drop
policies on court outcomes, victim satisfaction with the justice
system, and feelings of safety. Moreover, researchers wanted to
determine whether (1) prosecution without the victim's cooperation was
feasible with appropriate increases in resources, (2) implementing a
no-drop policy resulted in increased convictions and fewer dismissals,
(3) the number of trials would increase in jurisdictions where no-drop
was adopted as a result of the prosecutor's demand for a plea in cases
in which victims were uncooperative or unavailable, and (4)
prosecutors would have to downgrade sentence demands to persuade
defense attorneys to negotiate pleas in the new context of a no-drop
policy.

Study Design:
Researchers identified sites where the Office of
Justice Programs (OJP) had awarded funds for no-drop prosecution
(under the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) grant program) to
encourage arrest policies. From the handful of grantees who had been
awarded funds to implement no-drop, researchers chose Everett,
Washington, Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Omaha, Nebraska. These three
sites seemed the most committed to implementing a strong no-drop
policy. Researchers also added San Diego in order to examine the
effects of two state laws favorable to prosecutors. These statutes
were designed to make it easier to admit certain types of evidence and
thereby increase the prosecutor's chances of succeeding in trials
without victim cooperation. To assess the impact of the statutes,
researchers collected official records data on a sample of domestic
violence cases (with disposition occurring between 1996 and 2000)
resulting in no trial (Part 1) and cases (with disposition occurring
between 1996 and 1999) which resulted in a trial (Part 2). Even though
San Diego had not applied for funds under the arrest policies grant
program, researchers believed it was important to include it. San
Diego was not only the first place to try no-drop, but it was also
widely considered to have been the most successful at implementing the
policy. In the remaining three sites, Everett (Part 3), Klamath Falls
(Part 4), and Omaha (Part 5), researchers collected data on all
domestic violence cases (with disposition occurring between 1996 and
1999) resulting in a trial. Researchers had hoped to gather samples
of domestic violence case files from before and after the
implementation of the no-drop policy. This would have enabled them
to determine how these policies affected conviction rates, sentences,
trial rates, and trial verdicts. However, researchers were only able
to obtain pre- and post-no-drop data in Everett (Part 5). Researchers
also conducted telephone interviews with domestic violence victims
from the four sites who had a domestic violence case resolved under
the no-drop policy (Part 6). The survey asked victims about (1) what
they believed should have been done with the case (from dropping
charges to sentencing batterers to jail terms), (2) their willingness
to cooperate with criminal justice officials, (3) their contact with
victim advocates, (4) their belief that their views were heard and
considered by criminal justice officials, (5) their satisfaction with
officials (police, prosecutor, and judge) and with the case outcome,
(6) their beliefs about whether the criminal justice outcome had
increased or decreased their safety, and (7) the level of violence
experienced after the case was resolved in court. Extensive efforts
were made to reach victims. First, researchers attempted to make
contact using the phone number provided by the prosecutor's office. If
the number was disconnected or the victim no longer lived at that
address, an interviewer called a telephone directory/information to
obtain the new number listed for the victim. To encourage victim
participation, victims were monetarily compensated. For victims who
refused to participate, interviewers tried to alleviate any concerns
about the interview and made assurances that confidentiality would be
maintained.

Sample:
Convenience sampling and random sampling.

Data Source:

administrative records data and telephone interviews

Description of Variables:
Variables for Part 1 include defendant's gender,
court outcome, whether the defendant was sentenced to probation, jail,
or counseling, and whether the counseling was for batter, drug, or
anger management. Criminal history, other domestic violence charges,
and the relationship between the victim and defendant are also
included. Variables for Part 2 include length of trial and outcome,
witnesses for the prosecution, defendant's statements to the police,
whether there were photos of the victim's injury, the scene, or the
weapon, and whether medical experts testified. Criminal history and
whether the defendant underwent psychological evaluation or counseling
are also included. Variables for Parts 3-5 include the gender of the
victim and defendant, relationship between victim and defendant, top
charges and outcomes, whether the victim had to be subpoenaed, types
of witnesses, if there was medical evidence, type of weapon used, if
any, whether the defendant confessed, any indications that the
prosecutor talked to the victim, if the victim was in court on the
disposition date, the defendant's sentence, and whether the sentence
included electronic surveillance, public service, substance abuse
counseling, or other general counseling. Variables for Part 6 include
relationship between victim and defendant, whether the victim wanted
the defendant to be arrested, whether the defendant received treatment
for alcohol, drugs, or domestic violence, if the court ordered the
defendant to stay away from the victim, if the victim spoke to anyone
in the court system, such as the prosecutor, detective, victim
advocate, defense attorney, judge, or a probation officer. The
victim's satisfaction with the police, judge, prosecutor, and the
justice system, and whether the defendant had continued to threaten,
damage property, or abuse the victim verbally or physically are also
included. Demographic variables on the victim include race, income,
and level of education.

Response Rates:
Parts 1-5: Not applicable. The response rate for
Part 6 was 18.4 percent.

Presence of Common Scales:
Several Likert-type scales were used in Part 6.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release: 2002-06-19

Version History:

2006-03-30 File UG3319.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2006-03-30 File CB3319.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.

Download Statistics

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).